Geez, more inane guff. I can assure you that the players and coaches in Big Ten football programs do not share your views on how unequipped or unable they are to compete outside of their home cities, time zones, and/or weather comfort zones. They would probably scoff at the notions, frankly. None of your listed points seem applicable or counter arguments I've made, they just sort of exist in space. NFL playoffs being played in all weather? That makes my point, for crying out loud. All those NFL superstar QB's I listed from lousy weather locations illustrate the folly of your argument that you can't pass effectively if you play in a cold weather town. Most quarterbacks and receivers will tell you that they actually have a greater advantage over the defense when the field is wet, given they know where they are going each play, and it's harder for the defense to react quickly on a wet surface. You still haven't explained why Notre Dame can pass so well all the time and send so many quarterbacks to the NFL. Hell, Notre Dame beat USC 11 straight times during the 80's and 90's, and half of those games would have been out here. Why did the top Big Ten schools have such difficulty?
Bottom line is this. Michigan honks have been yapping for weeks about how they and Ohio State are the two best teams in the country, and that they should be playing for the national title, and that other teams weren't in their league this year and all this. Now, you're telling me that what they actually were saying is "We're the best two teams in the country, as long as we get to play these other teams we're better than in the cold weather, and we don't have to travel very far, and both sides agree to run the ball a lot." If you guys are that good, let's see you beat USC, how about just once? How about this year, when you have a three-year starter at QB and a three-year starter at running back, and the "best front seven in the country" and all this, while USC has a first year QB, all freshmen running backs, and is replacing two Heisman winners? Even though you will have the incredibly disadvantage of having to play the game in 65 degree weather, and the havoc that can wreak on a team's execution (my God), why don't you show me something and beat USC, just once this year, before you ever expect me or anyone else out here to listen to your claims about national dominance.
How? ...Since my point was that ALL of the Rose Bowl games are played in what is effectively a home-game circumstance for the PAC-10 - especially USC and UCLA which make up the bulk of the games you are speaking of - one which is not only home, but also time zones off, and a very different climate. December in Ann Arbor has only about half the month on average where any portion of the day breaks freezing. All things being otherwise equal, you'd expect about an 80% win rate from that.
All those NFL superstar QB's I listed from lousy weather locations illustrate the folly of your argument that you can't pass effectively if you play in a cold weather town.
Nowhere did I make that argument. What I said was that you've got to be able to hunker down and play power football in the cold, and the more successful Big-10 teams built their teams to do so. The NFL teams you cited all have that ability, or they lose. Most have quite notable home field advantage vs. southern/mild climate teams come December and January, some even legendarily so.
I'll further note that with the increased emphasis on Bowl Games in general since 1990, that the teams HAVE changed.
Heck, the ND/USC weries was BEGUN over the issue of the weather. ...and yet again you use October games to suggest that January games don't matter. Now, you're telling me that what they actually were saying is "We're the best two teams in the country, as long as we get to play these other teams we're better than in the cold weather, and we don't have to travel very far, and both sides agree to run the ball a lot."
No. What I'm saying is that the Rose Bowl is essentially a home game for the PAC-10 representative against a conference whose teams have climate-related dictations to their build, which for the bowl game in question they are always playing outside of. I'm suggesting that if the games were home and home, that the balance during the time in question would likely have been a lot more even - as regular season results suggest. I'm suggesting that a 76 degree day in LA benefits USC against Michigan roughly as much as a 25 degree day in Ann Arbor benefits MI against USC. ...and that's just the way it is, since you're probably not going to get the money flowing into Ann Arbor in January that you get going into LA in January.
Heck, even AtlantaJeff (who agrees with your general assessment) concedes that point.
The Rose Bowl is a Pac-10 home game.
Frankly, even in the belief that UM probably is the second best team, I was hoping that there's be more conference mixing and no rematch. USC v OSU at Tempe looked like a good test, and a very good game - not that that is fully relevant to my point.